Overview

The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 40 of 1996 - Revocation, enacted in 2011, addresses the classification of metatarsalgia under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The Authority concluded that metatarsalgia does not meet the definition of a "disease" or "injury" as outlined in the Act, thus revoking the previous Statement of Principles concerning this condition. This legislative instrument was developed following an investigation into the medical condition, during which the Authority sought input from relevant organisations and individuals but received no submissions. The Authority subsequently informed stakeholders of its proposed revocation and provided another opportunity for feedback, which also went unanswered. This revocation formalises the Authority's position on metatarsalgia, clarifying its stance on the condition in relation to veterans' entitlements.

Scope and Application

The Repatriation Medical Authority Instrument No. 40 of 1996 – Revocation, issued under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, specifically addresses the condition of metatarsalgia. The Authority has concluded that metatarsalgia does not meet the definitions of "disease" or "injury" as stipulated in section 5D of the VEA. Consequently, the Authority has revoked the existing Statement of Principles concerning metatarsalgia, which was previously determined under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA. This revocation aligns with subsection 196B(9) of the VEA and subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, and it takes effect in accordance with subsection 12(1)(a) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. The Authority undertook an investigation into metatarsalgia, advertising its intention in the Government Notices Gazette and inviting submissions from relevant organisations and experts, though none were received. This Instrument concludes the investigation and is applicable to entities and individuals within the scope of the VEA, such as veterans, service personnel, and their dependants.

Key Provisions

The Repatriation Medical Authority (the Authority) has determined a Statement of Principles, Instrument No. 40 of 1996 – Revocation, concerning metatarsalgia, concluding that this condition does not constitute a "disease" or "injury" as defined in section 5D of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) (subsection 196B(9) of the VEA and subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901). This Instrument revokes the previous Statement of Principles, Instrument No. 40 of 1996, concerning metatarsalgia, which was determined under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA (subsection 196B(9) of the VEA). The effective date of this revocation is specified in accordance with sub-section 12(1)(a) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. The Authority is obligated to undertake investigations into conditions that may be considered as diseases or injuries for the purposes of the VEA and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. In this case, the Authority advertised its intention to investigate metatarsalgia in the Government Notices Gazette of 25 June 2008 and invited submissions from relevant organisations and individuals, including the Repatriation Commission and those with expertise in the field (section 196E of the VEA). Despite these efforts, no submissions were received for consideration during the investigation. The Authority must ensure that any revocation of a Statement of Principles is based on a thorough review of the medical-scientific material and an opportunity for relevant parties to make representations. This process was followed, as the Authority wrote to organisations representing veterans, service personnel, and their dependants on 29 October 2010, outlining its view on metatarsalgia and inviting representations before determining the Instrument (subsection 196E(1)(a) to (c) of the VEA). Again, no submissions were received. In determining this Instrument, the Authority must ensure compliance with the legislative requirements and provide reasons for its decision, as outlined in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The Authority's decision to revoke the existing Statement of Principles concerning metatarsalgia is based on its view that the condition does not meet the criteria of a "disease" or "injury" under the VEA. Any breach of the requirements to undertake investigations and provide opportunities for representations could potentially lead to legal challenges. However, the legislation does not specify particular offences, penalties, or consequences for such breaches. The maximum penalties for general breaches of legislative instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 are prescribed in the relevant Acts and can vary, but are generally aligned with the severity of the breach and any associated harm or non-compliance.